I understand embarrassingly little about what is going on with the Health Care bill.
Will you guys bring me up to speed?
Thanks.
Basically the government's "solution" to healthcare being too expensive and dominated by those mean insurance companies is to give the government trillions of dollars so that they can force everyone to buy insurance from those same mean insurance companies.
Wow...well frickin' done.
thx
am currently reading this ...
http://www.businessweek.com/investor...322_662113.htm
So it doesn't begin to take effect until 2014 and even then not for everyone?
The combined legislation would cover 19 million uninsured beginning in 2014, with a majority of uninsured covered by 2016 (30 million). The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill to cost $940 billion.
Implications according to Liberals: This bill is a good step toward comprehensive healthcare reform, with lower prices and coverage for all Americans.
Implications according to Conservatives: This bill will bankrupt the country and its people, with higher taxes for all and more strain on the medical system.
NOTE: When I say Liberal and Conservative, I am referring to the media definition of them which is defined as where they stand on the party line.
No, some things start to take effect immediately. For example, children cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions as soon as this law is signed.
am currently reading this ...
http://www.businessweek.com/investor...322_662113.htm
So it doesn't begin to take effect until 2014 and even then not for everyone?
Some other things (like lifting coverage denial for adults with pre-existing conditions) kick in in 2014.
Don't listen to the right wingnuts here. They spew nothing but lies.
There are lots of summaries around. Here's one:
March 21, 2010
For Consumers, Clarity on Health Care Changes
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
American consumers, who spent a year watching Congress scratch and claw over sweeping health care legislation, can now try to figure out what the overhaul would mean for them.
The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans.
The legislation is meant to provide coverage for as many as 32 million people who have been shut out of the market — whether because insurers deem them too sick or because they cannot afford ever-rising insurance premiums.
For people already covered by a large employer — most Americans, in other words — the effect would not be as significant. And yet, just about everyone might benefit from tighter insurance regulations.
“We think it’s a big step forward,” said Bill Vaughan, a policy analyst at Consumers Union. “It’s going to provide a peace of mind that many Americans who really want or need health insurance will always be able to get a quality product at a reasonable price regardless of their health or financial situation.”
There would be costs to consumers, too. Affluent families would be required to pay additional taxes. Most Americans would be required to have health insurance and face federal penalties if they do not buy it. And it is still unclear what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums.
But there is no question that the legislation should benefit consumers in various ways. Beginning in 2014, for example, many employers — those with 50 or more workers — could face federal fines for not providing insurance coverage. Several of the other changes would take effect much sooner.
Six months after the legislation is enacted, many plans would be prohibited from placing lifetime limits on medical coverage, and they could not cancel the policies of people who fall ill. Children with pre-existing conditions could not be denied coverage.
And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans — instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19.
And within three months of the law’s taking effect, people who have been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition would be eligible for subsidized coverage through a new high-risk insurance program.
That special coverage would continue until the legislation’s engine kicks into a higher gear in 2014, when coverage would be extended to a wider part of the population through Medicaid and new state-run insurance exchanges.
Those exchanges, or marketplaces, are meant to provide much more compe ive, consumer-friendly online shopping centers of private insurance for people who are not able to obtain coverage through an employer.
In 2014, people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be denied insurance, all lifetime and annual limits on coverage would be eliminated and new policies would be required to meet higher benefit standards.
Even sooner, in 2013, affluent families with annual income above $250,000 would be required to pay an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income, while contributing more to the Medicare program from their payroll taxes. And eventually, the most expensive insurance policies would be subject to a new tax.
Here is a look at some of the main ways the health care overhaul might affect household budgets.
The Uninsured
Although most Americans who do not obtain health insurance would face a federal penalty starting in 2014, many experts question how strict the enforcement of that penalty would actually be.
The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. But the penalty would subsequently rise, reaching $695, or 2 percent of income.
Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income, said Sara R. Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, an independent nonprofit research group.
EXPANDED MEDICAID More lower-income individuals under the age of 65 would be covered by Medicaid, the federal health insurance plan for the poor. Under the new rules, households with income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $29,327 for a family of four, would be eligible.
EXCHANGES AND SUBSIDIES Most other uninsured people would be required to buy insurance through one of the new state-run insurance exchanges. People with incomes of more than 133 percent of the poverty level but less than 400 percent (that’s $29,327 to $88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for premium subsidies through the exchanges.
Premiums would also be capped at a percentage of income, ranging from 3 percent of income to as much as 9.5 percent.
EMPLOYMENT FLEXIBILITY The exchanges would also help people who lose their jobs, quit or decide to start their own businesses.
“If you lose your employer-related insurance, you will be able to move seamlessly into the exchange,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Moreover, people of any age who cannot find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of their income would be allowed to buy a catastrophic policy otherwise intended for people under age 30.
Those With Insurance
EMPLOYER COVERAGE People who receive coverage through large employers would be unlikely to see any drastic changes, nor should premiums or coverage be affected. But almost everyone would benefit from new regulations, like the ban on pre-existing conditions that would apply to all policies come 2014.
There might even be cases where people would be eligible to buy insurance through an exchange instead of through their employer, Professor Jost said: those who must pay more than 9.5 percent of their income for premiums, or those whose plans do not cover more than 60 percent of the cost their benefits.
CHANGES IN MEDICARE One of the biggest changes involves the Medicare prescription drug program. Its unpopular “doughnut hole” — a big, expensive gap in coverage that affects millions — would be eliminated by 2020. Starting immediately, consumers who hit the gap would receive a $250 rebate. In 2011, they would receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs.
HIGH-COST INSURANCE Starting in 2018, employers that offer workers pricier plans — or those with total premiums of $10,200 or more for singles and $27,500 for families — would be subject to a 40 percent tax on the excess premium, said C. Clinton Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte. Retirees and workers in high-risk professions like firefighting would have higher thresholds ($11,850 for singles, or $30,950 for families), pegged to inflation.
Although the taxes would be levied on the insurer, experts expect the assessment to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums or reduced benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/yo...gewanted=print
Lazy deadbeat ers get one more thing for free, if it holds up and the people who pay for their own pay for those who don't, again. This is not health care reform, this is health care take over.
Thank you Boutons, for the article.
Well, its good to know the author of this piece doesnt mind sending "children" to prison and war.And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans — instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19.
There is no such thing as an 18 year old "child" (barring re ation), much less a 26 year old "dependent".
And it is still unclear what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums.Although the taxes would be levied on the insurer, experts expect the assessment to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums or reduced benefits.
"what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums."
The only real solution to get the for-profit insurers out of the loop is a medicare-for-all public option.
Another way to reduce costs is to annul the Repugs' insane gift (and citizen screw job) to BigPharma that forbids govt from negotiating drug prices.
Govt has enormous buying power as single buyer for medicare/medicaid/VA/public option. Americans would no longer be screwed over with drugs priced much higher, over well over 2x higher, than the same drugs in other countries.
Forbid DTC, direct-to-consumer, prescription drug marketing. No more Ask You Doctor silliness. BigPharma spends $60B on marketing and $30B on research.
Another cost reduction would be the aggressive spread of generic drugs, including re-imporation (if no single-buyer is done), while making it illegal for BigPharma to buy up and shut up generic drug mfrs to keep generics from hurting BigPharma profits.
We can all be assured that costs will continue rising, aka, screwing the consumer by the "free market" unless the govt counters the screw jobbing by the for-profit health "care" industries.
It's not hard to imagine a 22-26 year old just out of undergraduate or graduate study, that gets sick shortly after making use of their degree and unable to work. They lose "dependent" status when not not in school, so why wouldn't you want them to be under their parents plan? It's not like the government is saying "we'll pick up the tab, for your 26 y/o ass." It's just saying that the parents can take on the child/offspring/person and get them treated. If anything, those are the people you want working ASAP and get them treated as fast as possible. Otherwise families have to pay out of pocket, which can delay treatment and make things worse, in addition to hurting them financially.
Just my thoughts, but it's certainly plausible to be a 25-26 y/o dependent needing treatment for something.
Yeah, because medicare is in such great shape.................
The democrats had a chance to do just that in the bill they just passed, but they chose not to. Democrats support big pharma corporate welfare.Another way to reduce costs is to annul the Repugs' insane gift (and citizen screw job) to BigPharma that forbids govt from negotiating drug prices.
Good thing the government doesn't ever look to screw anyone...........We can all be assured that costs will continue rising, aka, screwing the consumer by the "free market" unless the govt counters the screw jobbing by the for-profit health "care" industries.
Silly boutonski and his talking points. The govt agressively negotiates drug prices. It was Medicare, not the Govt. Idiot. If you had even a cursory idea of how contract pricing works via the published AWG, you probably would'nt post nonsense like this.
What am I saying...this is boutonski. There's nothing you won't post.
The VA receives the best pharma pricing in the country. Period.
Bush's kneejerk legislation, The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, (notice the word "Medicare" btw), was a very poor move on many fronts and I won't dispute the that in anyway.
"medicare is in such great shape"
You're True.
Polls show that Medicare patients are much happier than for-profit insurer patients, and that Americans over 65 actually have better health that other countries' 65+
populations.
" democrats had a chance to do just that in the bill"
You have to pick your battles, to make compromises. The Dems knew they couldn't steal all the health care industries' cheeses at once. That cheese reduction will come later.
Medicare has damn near $50 trillion of unfunded liabilities and was already on track to become insolvent by 2018. That was before the current healthcare bill cut half a trillion dollars from it. Medicare is a failure.
You're dreaming. Democrats are never going to attempt to dismantle the corporate welfare programs they fought so hard to protect." democrats had a chance to do just that in the bill"
You have to pick your battles, to make compromises. The Dems knew they couldn't steal all the health care industries' cheeses at once. That cheese reduction will come later.
Angel, this is a pretty good and concise summary. Beware, though, it's New York Times, so they neglect to mention Soilent Green.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...e-reform.html/
To judge from the GOP's relentless demagoguing of Medicare cuts during this debate, neither will they.
No doubt. Neither party has much of an interest in curtailing corporate welfare.
Because all poor people are "lazy deadbeats" ?
You need to educate yourself on the world.
with sky-rocketing university tuition's, rising cost of living, and ty wages for college students with no experience, you better believe there are millions of 18-25 year olds struggling to pay for all of their expenses while going to college and keeping a job at the same time.
this is a big burden off of their shoulders. getting sick in USA is very expensive.
Access to coverage does not equal access to care.
Most schools have affordable medical coverage.
People that don't want health insurance, don't need health insurance, are now forced to pay for it....basically because a huge segment of stupid 18-25 year olds, who need health insurance less than anyone, think it's some essential need.
The funny part is what's going to happen when they turn 27 and they figure it out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
